DEFINITION OF CHOKING IN SPORT 1. Definition of Choking in Sport: Re-conceptualization and Debate. Christopher Mesagno

Transcription

1 DEFINITION OF CHOKING IN SPORT Definition of Choking in Sport: Re-conceptualization and Debate Christopher Mesagno School of Health Sciences, University of Ballarat, Australia Denise M. Hill University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, United Kingdom Accepted to International Journal of Sport Psychology (IJSP) Please note: Since IJSP does not provide pdf versions of documents, please refer to the in print version for the official draft. Author note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Christopher Mesagno, Ph.D. University of Ballarat, School of Health Sciences, PO Box, Ballarat, Victoria Australia. Phone:. Fax:.

2 DEFINITION OF CHOKING IN SPORT 0 Abstract In sport, choking under pressure is a negative athletic experience that may have psychologically damaging effects. The media recognizes that choking is a dramatic drop in performance, whereas researchers have labeled choking as any decrease in performance under pressure. This discrepancy between the media s and researchers perception of choking leads to ambiguity among terms and confusion among researchers, applied practitioners, and the general public. Thus, the current position paper will: critically analyze current choking definitions and explore why they are not appropriate operational definitions; explain the current underperformance and choking terminology debate; offer an alternative choking definition that should be debated; and also identify ways that researchers can improve the robustness of choking investigations. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate debate and improve the quality of future choking research. Keywords: Under-performance, anxiety, paradoxical performance

3 0 0 Introduction Choking (under pressure) in sport can have damaging effects on athletes that includes under-achieved sporting potential, diminished enjoyment, lowered well-being, and impaired self-identity (Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 0). Accordingly, the phenomenon of choking has received increased research attention, in part, to ascertain fully its mechanism and moderators, and to develop suitable interventions that can alleviate its occurrence (see Beilock & Gray, 00; Hill, Hanton, Fleming, & Matthews, 00a for reviews). The popular press has generally labeled athletes as chokers based on observable acute and substantial performance decrements under pressure. High profile examples include professional golfers Rory McElroy (0 U.S. Masters), Greg Norman ( U.S. Masters) and Jean Van de Velde ( British Open), and tennis player Jana Novotna ( Wimbledon final). In each event, these athletes experienced a considerable decline in performance standard at a time when pressure was likely higher than normal (i.e., latter stages of the competition), consequently losing a commanding lead and the event as a result. In fact, according to the journalist Clarkson (), Australian professional golfer Greg Norman has lost so many leads in major tournaments that to choke in golf has been labeled as pulling a Norman (p. 0-0). Although such journalistic sentiment should not determine the nature and direction of empirical research, there is a clear discrepancy between how choking is used within the media and its application by sport psychology researchers. That is, the media label athletes as chokers after an acute and dramatic performance failure, whereas applied sport psychology researchers generally classify any substandard performance as a choke (see Hill et al., 00a). This disparity has led Hill, Hanton, Fleming, and Matthews (00) to suggest, by regarding any deterioration of performance as choking, there may have been a failure in the literature to identify and subsequently investigate choking in sport, which arguably is a

4 0 0 more acute and significant decline (p. 0). Furthermore, as a universally accepted definition of choking in sport does not exist, researchers have been employing various definitions, which is unlikely to provide a robust exploration and explanation of the experience, and offer cogent evidence for practitioners working with athletes who choke. Aim and Rationale As definitions determine the nature and direction of future research (Cooper, Dewe, & O Driscoll, 00), researchers should ensure that a choking definition is generated, which has collective agreement and represents the choking experience. Thus, the aim of this paper is to: reflect on the influence that previous and contemporary definitions have had on the conceptualization of choking, discuss critically the current debate regarding the choking definition, offer an alternative operational definition that should be debated, and identify issues of importance for future choking research. From this position (and within the debate that emerges from this Special Issue of the International Journal of Sport Psychology), we hope to advance the choking literature by stimulating discussion that leads to an accepted definition for researchers, applied consultants, and the general public. Furthermore, we also hope this paper will encourage researchers to more accurately investigate choking, rather than under-performances, in future. The following sections discuss peer-reviewed published studies or book chapters that either refer to the choking definition or explicitly investigate choking. Traditional Definition(s) of Choking in Sport Over the past 0 years, sport anxiety researchers have attempted to understand choking and have also proposed a number of definitions. Traditional choking definitions have failed to accurately include distinct, observable elements (i.e., increased anxiety under pressure, and a considerable decrease in performance), which make it different from other performance failures. For example, Daniel () perceived choking as, the inability to perform up to

5 0 0 previously exhibited standards (p. 0). Similarly, Masters () defined choking as the failure of normally expert skill under pressure (p. ). There are, however, many reasons why athletes may not perform to previous standards or fail under pressure (e.g., a performance slump or injury), which would not be considered choking. As such, the Daniel and Masters definitions have not been widely used in choking literature. Instead, researchers have predominantly used Baumeister s (Baumeister, ; Baumeister & Showers, ) choking definitions, which stated principally that choking is inferior performance under pressure, while striving for optimal success. Although researchers (e.g., Oudejans & Pjipers, 00; Reeves, Tenenbaum, & Lidor, 00; Vickers & Williams, 00; Wilson, 00) have employed Baumeister s choking definition(s) without questioning its applicability, others (e.g., Gucciardi & Dimmock, 00) have used it with reservation and suggested that other definitions be constructed. One main criticism of Baumeister s definition is whether choking should be used to describe any decrement in performance, or indicate a distinct and acute performance failure that differs from underperformance (Hill et al., 00). Similarly, other definitions (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 00; Beilock & Gray, 00), which identify choking as performing worse than expected given one s level of skill, can be questioned in the same vein. It should be noted that Beilock and Gray identified that choking occurs in response to high perceived pressure and did explain that choking differs from other performance issues (e.g., a slump). Recently, researchers have attempted to expand and re-conceptualize the choking definition (e.g., Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 00; Mesagno, Marchant, & Morris, 00; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 00) largely from critical analysis of Baumeister s () and Beilock and Gray s (00) attempts. For example, Gucciardi et al. (00) suggested that choking is, heightened levels of perceived pressure and where incentives for optimal performance are at a maximum lead to acute or chronic forms of

6 0 0 suboptimal performance or performing more poorly than expected given one s skill level and self-set performance expectations (p. ). Similarly, Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (00) defined choking as, a critical deterioration in skill execution leading to substandard performance that is caused by an elevation in anxiety levels under perceived pressure at a time when successful outcome is normally attainable by the athlete (p. ). Both definitions offer an increasingly explicit account of choking, with Mesagno and Mullane- Grant emphasizing the element of increased anxiety, which is important because without heightened anxiety, choking would not occur. Both contemporary definitions, however, still imply that any sub-standard performance is choking, which remains contentious. In an earlier study, Hill et al. (00) recruited four expert sport psychologists who had extensive research and applied experience in stress and anxiety. Through a focus group discussion, participants constructed a definition (and choking characteristics), which from an applied sport psychology perspective, may distinguish it from other sub-optimal performance. Accordingly, Hill et al. stated, Choking in sport is a process whereby the individual perceives that their resources are insufficient to meet the demands of the situation, and concludes with a significant drop in performance a choke (p. 0). The Hill et al. definition was the first to represent choking as a considerable, extreme and dramatic failure in athletic performance, which extends previous and contemporary definitions. This position has been recently supported (e.g., Hill et al., 00b, 0), however, the operational definition does not refer to increased anxiety and ambiguous terms are used (e.g., resources and demands ), which limits its usability within (quantitative) research. From this description, it is clear that, to date, an operational definition has evaded researchers. Within the next section, we discuss and consider how influential definitions have been on choking literature. We do not mean this to be an extensive review, but merely the initiation of debate that may inform future research.

7 0 0 Use of Definitions in Choking Research It is important to differentiate choking from an under-performance, yet, researchers have primarily considered any performance decrease as choking. For example, Gucciardi and Dimmock (00) examined and compared extant choking models in sport. Twenty experienced golfers were asked to putt 0 times to a target three meters away under low- and high-pressure while using either three explicit knowledge cues, three task-irrelevant knowledge cues, or a single swing thought cue. Gucciardi and Dimmock explained that participants experienced choking when their absolute error score increased by an average of approximately centimeters per 0 putts while focusing on the explicit knowledge cues. These results represented a statistically significant performance difference between the lowand high-pressure conditions for the explicit knowledge group, however, the choking experiences were only minor performance decrements under pressure, and may have been an under-performance rather than a choke. Nevertheless, this study offered support for the self-focus model and indicated that abstract swing thoughts and irrelevant thoughts may prevent experienced golfers from choking. Similarly, Wilson, Smith, and Holmes s (00) asked participants to complete 0 putts to five different holes (two from m; two from. m; one from. m) under low- and highpressure. Participants were divided into low and high trait anxious groups and an absolute error score was recorded for each putt. Results indicated that the low trait anxious group experienced relatively stable performance during the low- and high-pressure. The high trait anxious group, however, were said to have choked, even though performance deteriorated by approximately cm per set of 0 putts. This study offered support for the distraction theories of choking, as it was inferred that cognitive anxiety overwhelmed working memory of the high trait anxious participants.

8 0 0 Using a different sport, Wang, Marchant, Morris, and Gibbs (00) asked participants to complete the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS) and the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS) prior to 0 basketball free throws under low- and high-pressure situations. Choking was said to have occurred, even though performance deteriorated by an average of only (.0) shot per 0 attempts. Choking was also correlated to high scores on the SCS and SAS, and offered support for the moderating role of public self-consciousness and trait somatic anxiety. Although missing one free throw may be significant during the closing stages of a basketball game, in an experiment with participants, this represents a slight decrease in performance which arguably may not signify a choking experience. Jordet and colleagues (e.g., Jordet, 00; Jordet, Hartman, & Vuijk, 0) have also contributed to the choking literature recently, through the examination of penalty shoot-outs in highly pressurized world-renowned soccer tournaments. In these archival studies, choking was considered to have occurred if the player did not score (either by missing the goal or by being saved by the goal keeper) even though they, as expert players, were capable of doing so under pressure. Failed shots were labeled as choking and as a significant drop in performance. We would argue, however, that it is uncertain whether a single, discrete failed performance (i.e., one penalty shot) can be considered robustly as choking. This is especially true if the ball was on target to score but was saved by the goal keeper because the outcome was based on something other than the striker s performance (i.e., the goal keeper s ability). If an analysis were considered for single failed shots, then a more robust choking-related analysis (considering the debate raised by Hill et al., 00) on the number of drastically missed shots (e.g., missing the goal altogether without touching the keeper or goal) would be appropriate. These missed shots would signify a dramatic performance decrease based on the athletes skill level, rather than an under-performance. Furthermore, Jordet and colleagues have provided a well-articulated argument about why anxiety was maximized in world-class

9 0 0 soccer matches, yet, anxiety measures were not used (due to the archival study), which leads to anxiety assumptions and limited generalization. The above studies provide examples of how Baumeister s definition(s) can be used to label minimal performance decrements as choking. In turn, their findings (alongside similar studies) have shaped our understanding of choking that includes suggested mechanisms and moderators, despite some ambiguity about whether choking was examined. If choking is an acute, substantial decline in performance that differs from an under-performance, then these studies have provided an excellent insight into the processes associated with sub-optimal performances, but not necessarily choking. Thus, we ask the following questions: Are researchers confident they are investigating choking if only a minor decrease in performance is obtained? Is there a difference between an under-performance and choking in terms of performance outcome, underlying mechanisms, and moderators? Will the same theory-matched interventions alleviate the likelihood of an under-performance and a choke? We argue that choking is a distinctive sporting failure that differs from other performance failures both qualitatively and quantitatively (Hill et al., 00b, 0). Ever-Changing Evidence of Choking The above claims have emerged initially from anecdotal (including media) reports where choking is described as a particularly dramatic, significant, collapse in performance standards under pressure. Although researchers should not be driven by media colloquialism, we argue that research should reflect real life terminology. In addition, there has been a changing emphasis on the term acute / significant drop (in performance) to be included within traditional choking definitions. For example, Clark, Tofler and Lardon (00) have stated that choking is, a colloquial, pejorative term, used to convey the phenomenon of acute performance failure under perceived stress (p. ). Likewise, Wilson, Chattington, Marple-

10 0 0 Horvat and Smith (00) stated that choking is acute performance decrements despite the ability and incentives for good performance (p.). Thus, a sense has begun to emerge that choking may differ from sub-standard performances by being an acute or significant performance drop. Furthermore, recent qualitative choking research (e.g., Hill et al., 00b, 0) has indicated that athletes may perceive a difference in cognitions, emotions, and consequences between choking and an under-performance. For example, participants in Hill et al. (00b) study of elite golfers recognized that choking was, hacking a complete drop in performance a blow up a mess (p. ) compared to an under-performance. Participants also explained that choking was, more intense where they could not even think straight, while under-performing, there is still a chance it could be a good round (p. ). Similarly, Hill and Shaw (0) explored experienced athletes who had choked regularly while playing a team sport and found that an under-performance was when, you do one or two things wrong but when you choke can t play at all can t do anything right the only thing is get off the field. This distinction between an under-performance and choking has not been found in other similar qualitative studies (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 00), nevertheless researchers could be exploring a different entity that has clear and important implications for theoretical researchers and applied practitioners alike. Proposed Operational Definition and Characteristics Based on the above information and a critical, extensive review of the extant operational definitions, we propose choking as an acute and considerable decrease in skill execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure. This definition provides key observable elements (i.e., increased anxiety and substantial performance decrease) and explanation that the performance is below normal for the athlete. Researchers have not yet

11 0 0 0 investigated the magnitude of a performance decrement necessary for choking to occur, thus, future research and debate is needed to improve this definition. Factors that appear to distinguish choking from an underperformance are (in no particular order): ) the magnitude of performance decrement (e.g., Baumeister, ; Hill et al., 00), ) negative cognitive appraisal of anxiety (or debilitative anxiety; Gucciardi et al., 00; Hill et al., 00b), ) a lack of perceived control (Gucciardi et al., 00; Hill et al., 00; 0; Otten, 00), and ) self-presentational concerns (Mesagno, 00; Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 0), which we propose should inform future choking research. Choking is also the result of striving to achieve success, rather than caused directly by physiological factors such as injury or fatigue. Finally, the retrieval of normal performance standards after choking is difficult and gives rise to post-choke intense / negative affect (Hill et al., 00b, 0). Issues for Future Choking Research We believe that only minimal research studies (e.g., Vickers & Williams, 00) have convincingly investigated choking quantitatively based on the magnitude of their decrement in performance. With the limited choking research, we are unable to determine what magnitude of a decrease in performance constitutes choking, so we are not at liberty to propose a certain percentage decrease that constitutes all choking experiences. Instead, and until then, we provide suggestions for researchers to consider in future when conducting and explaining their choking research and findings. First, quantitative researchers should question whether the magnitude of the performance decrease is choking or just an underperformance. If it can be debated that the experimental results is an under-performance based on the magnitude of the performance decrease, then the authors should provide justification for why the results exhibit choking. Mesagno and colleagues (Mesagno et al., 0, 0; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 00) have been careful to justify their quantitative results as choking due to possible contentious performance results. Nevertheless, researchers can still

12 0 0 debate whether the magnitude of the decrement was under-performance or choking. If the results of a study are not convincingly choking, then perhaps researcher(s) can concede that the results favor under-performance. Second, instead of adopting Baumeister s () definition and accepting any performance decrease as choking, researchers should carefully consider their selected definition and ensure they explain their results on the basis of that definition. If their results do not conform to their adopted definition, then they should discuss why it may or may not be choking using that definition. Finally, researchers should also consider the inclusion of measurements of those factors that may distinguish a choke from an underperformance (e.g., negative appraisal of anxiety, perceived control, or selfpresentational concerns) to improve confidence in the identification and isolation of choking. Final Comments The purpose of this paper was to reflect on existing choking definitions, discuss the current choking and under-performance debate, offer an operational definition, and create discussion to advance empirical understanding for future researchers to consider. We believe Baumeister s () definition is outdated and a new operational definition should emerge based on recent choking literature (e.g., Hill et al., 00). If researchers believe that our definition (or those developed from this manuscript) is appropriate, then we would have successfully achieved our goal of improving the quality of future choking research. We would caution researchers investigating ambiguously defined factors of performance under pressure (e.g., clutch performance, perceived control) to create clear operational definitions to ensure clarity of the research paradigm. We also hope that this dialogue incites more research into whether a choking experience differs from an under-performance, and what cognitive processes are involved in both experiences.

13 0 0 References Baumeister, R. F. (). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 0-0. Baumeister, R. F. & Showers, C. J. (). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology,, -. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (00). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 0, 0-. Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (00). Why do athletes choke under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. -). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Clark, T. P., Tofler, I. R., & Lardon, M. T. (00). The sport psychiatrist and golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine,, -. Clarkson, M. (). Competitive fire: Insights to developing the warrior mentality of sports champions. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O Driscoll, M. (00). Stress and work organizations: A review and critique of theory, research and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daniel, M. (, December). The choke and what you can do about it. Scholastic Coach,, -. Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (00). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise,, -.

14 0 0 Gucciardi, D. F., Longbottom, J., Jackson, B., & Dimmock, J. A. (00). Experienced golfers perspectives on choking under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, -. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (00). A re-examination of choking in sport. European Journal of Sport Science, (), 0-. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (00a). Choking in sport: A review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, (), -. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (00b). A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology,, -0. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (0). Alleviation of choking under pressure in elite golf: An action research study. The Sport Psychologist,, -. Hill, D. M., & Shaw, G. (0). A qualitative examination of choking under pressure in team sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,, 0-0. Jordet, G. (00). Why do English players fail in soccer penalty shootouts? A study of team status, self-regulation, and choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Sciences,, - 0. Jordet, G., Hartman, E., & Vuijk, P. J. (0). Team history and choking under pressure in major soccer penalty shootouts. British Journal of Psychology, 0, -. Masters, R. S. W. (). Knowledge, nerves and know-how. British Journal of Psychology,, -. Mesagno, C. (00, June). Choking under pressure: Toward a self-presentation explanation of why athletes use self-monitoring techniques. Paper presented at the th World Congress of Sport Psychology, Marrakesh, Morocco.

15 0 0 Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T, & Janelle, C. M. (0). Self presentation origins of choking: Evidence from separate pressure manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,, -. Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T, & Janelle, C. M. (0). Choking under pressure: The role of fear of negative evaluation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,, 0-. Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (00). A pre-performance routine to alleviate choking in choking-susceptible athletes. The Sport Psychologist,, -. Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (00). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,, -0. Otten, M. (00). Choking vs. clutch: A study of sport performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,, -0. Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (00). Training with anxiety has a positive effect on expert perceptual-motor performance under pressure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,, -. Reeves, J. L., Tenenbaum, G., & Lidor, R. (00). Choking in front of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, 0-. Vickers, J., & Williams, M. (00). Performing under pressure: The effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety and gaze control in biathlon. Journal of Motor Behavior,, -. Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (00). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,, -.

16 0 Wilson, M. (00). From processing efficiency to attentional control: A mechanistic account of the anxiety-performance relationship. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, -0. Wilson, M., Chattington, M., Marple-Horvat, D. E., & Smith, C. N. (00). A comparison of self-focus versus attentional explanations of choking. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, -. Wilson, M., Smith, N. C., & Holmes, P. S. (00). The role of effort in influencing the effect of anxiety on performance: Testing the conflicting predictions of Processing Efficiency Theory and the Conscious Processing Hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology,, -.